Obama has authorized the drone strike that offed al-Awlaki...terrorist...inspiration for the Ft. Hood shooter among other terrorist acts here and abroad.

I think we can all agree that the world is a better place without this scumbag in it, and I for one am very glad he's dead, and salute the president for doing it.

Still...it's troubling, no?

The fact remains that the guy was a U.S. citizen, and he was just intentionally murdered by the US government without due process, to say the least.

Should the president be allowed to decide, by himself....or should anyone...Congress...the Pentagon...the Supreme Court...be allowed to decide that a US citizen deserves to die for whatever crimes he may have committed...including treason...without due process?...and then go ahead and do the deed?

Would it have mattered if he had been on US soil? Why would that make it different?

Discuss.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

I'll first crack and say on this issue I'm a centrist. al-Awlaki is, was, an U.S. Citizen, but had become a leader of a group we are at war with on foriegn soil. Were we to grab him and try him in court for sedition?

Much of this has to do with never making a clear Declaration of War (in Congress) against Al-Qaeda. David Addington and John Yoo specifically created process, carried forward by Obama, that promote this type of killing. From rendition, to now CIA hit lists against American citizens. IMO, the onus is on Congress to hold the executive branch's feet to the fire.

On the second question yes it did matter if it is on U.S. soil. On U.S. soil you don't have national sovereignty or logistical issues. The Times Square failed bomber was treated in this "different" manner.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

The guy was in another country fermenting terror to use on his own people. He got what he deserved. We had no chance to grab him and try him...... Just like Judd said in Pet Sematary "Sometimes.... dead is bettah."

Not sure I understand (except for the first sentence- that I get). From John Wilkes Booth to David Koresh and 20+ kids, haven't US citizens died on US soil at the direction of the federal government without due process?

I'm not arguing about the validity of the threats (perceived or otherwise) but rather this just doesn't seem like a new issue to me personally.

I personally have no issue with al-Awlaki being dispatched, for whatever it's worth. But the danger of the government making these calls (or being responsible for the authority given to make the calls) has existed for as long as the nation has existed.

^Of course, and it makes the "War on Terror" aspect an argument in semantic foolishness. I suppose it would have been easier for me to say, "Duh, peeks just nailed it," but I attempted to make us appear detached and cerebral.

Those above, and al-Awlaki, will fuel this discussion, but as you said its happened historically. And has it changed anything? I don't see any special legislation carved out from Koresh.

Tapper from ABC news quotes the White House as saying "State Secret" as the legal reasoning for the killing of an American citizen. Sounds just like Addington and Yoo...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

We already loosen restraints on the 4th amendment when applied abroad because of the practicality of doing otherwise. Combined with the hybrid status of terrorism between crime & war, the strike was on pretty solid footing, Amurrcan citizen or not.

In terms of slippery slopes, I'd put the threat of future abuse maybe a half-notch above the possibility of us legalizing marriages between goats and goat fuckers.

I would have wholeheartedly supported the killing under the previous administration, so can't really go about changing my mind just because I disagree with most of the stuff the current administration does. Is it a dangerous precedent to set? Maybe, but hopefully not. The issue is the fact that there really was no means of going in there and getting him, and he wasn't coming our way anytime soon. So the "what if this were on US soil?" question becomes more or less moot, because this wouldn't have happened on US soil and I don't think it ever will.

So if Adam Ghadan's location becomes known and we have a predator in the area, fire away. If we somehow get intel that Adam Ghadan is flying from Ibad-Dubai or somewhere that will arrest him for us, then we wait until we can get our hands on him and bring him back here by the scruff of his neck. I'll take 'em dead or alive, as long as they are brought to justice one way or another.

Had this have taken place 4 years ago though, I have a hard time not thinking that the NY Times, Harry Reid, Pelosi would have been screaming that it was an extrajudicial killing and Bush should be impeached.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

I think you're right,Al,about the double standard thing. The media would not consider this such a benign, non-threatening event if there were a Republican in the WH. In the same way that the self-described "anti-war" left is quiet as a mouse these days regarding drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition, military tribunals, etc.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

I think you're right,Al,about the double standard thing. The media would not consider this such a benign, non-threatening event if there were a Republican in the WH. In the same way that the self-described "anti-war" left is quiet as a mouse these days regarding drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition, military tribunals, etc.

Don't you think in a very subtle, nuanced, and passive way your committing the same double standard? Or, I'm I just reading tone into the text?

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

I think if you come out and are incensed about the double standard regarding how the media or the left (if there needs to be a designation between the two) has accepted this instance of federally sponsored killing then there is an argument to have.

I just kinda see this as 'issue' as not being an 'issue' as opposed to an example one could use to make the above argument.

Here's another interesting double-standard; the Obama admin and legal team says it's legal to kill a USC without due process. Fine, I agree in this case. But how is it then NOT legal to waterboard a non-USC without due process? If a CIA/military officer were to waterboard a probable AQ terrorist who was capture on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and he thought that action was stopping a potential future attack (same logic used by the admin in the AAA strike), then he would likely be prosecuted by DOJ.

Again, I agree with the predator strike(s). But why is killing legal and waterboarding not? If they had captured AAA on the battlefield and he laughed and said something to the effect of "your too late, the next attackers are already in place," they wouldn't have been able to waterboard it out of him, right?

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

I think you're right,Al,about the double standard thing. The media would not consider this such a benign, non-threatening event if there were a Republican in the WH. In the same way that the self-described "anti-war" left is quiet as a mouse these days regarding drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition, military tribunals, etc.

Don't you think in a very subtle, nuanced, and passive way your committing the same double standard? Or, I'm I just reading tone into the text?

Not sure what you mean...my comment was strictly about different media treatment of actions by the President...a difference so common and unsurprising and routine as to be almost unremarkable. That, and a noticeable difference in the way the hard-left treats necessary and reasonable war-making tactics based on who occupies the WH.

I think I'm being consistent. I supported Bush's WOT, and I support and applaud Obama's continuation of those policies as necessary and reasonable. I stated above my "salute" to Obama for this recent action.

The Atlantic article I posted is written by a confirmed lefty Friedersdorf, from a magazine/site that probably leans a bit left, but is fairly scrupulously non-partisan.

I remember JB's fevered anticipation of partisan criticism of Obama from the right when he killed OBL....criticism that never came. Most all the criticism of OBL's killing came from the left...unsurprisingly to most of us.

Edit: The issue here is more one of transparency....if the WH did their legal analysis and came to a decision based on that analysis, why the hesitance to let the people see it...just as we saw John Yoo's rationale for approving waterboarding.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

gotribe31 wrote:Here's another interesting double-standard; the Obama admin and legal team says it's legal to kill a USC without due process. Fine, I agree in this case. But how is it then NOT legal to waterboard a non-USC without due process? If a CIA/military officer were to waterboard a probable AQ terrorist who was capture on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and he thought that action was stopping a potential future attack (same logic used by the admin in the AAA strike), then he would likely be prosecuted by DOJ.

Again, I agree with the predator strike(s). But why is killing legal and waterboarding not? If they had captured AAA on the battlefield and he laughed and said something to the effect of "your too late, the next attackers are already in place," they wouldn't have been able to waterboard it out of him, right?

This is what kills me about relying on legal memos that are then buried under executive privilege. I understand the assymetric and unique threat, and I think a majority of the American public also understand, need some sort of transparency.

Look at what happens once there is a change in executive. Those CIA guys should never have went through that political witch hunt. I wish I had an answer.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

That's why I responded for clarification Dan. Your mention of "hiding" the memo, and thinking it would "eventually" have to be released had me thinking you were going after the admin and less so the media. This is being played vey closely to how the Bush admin handled "gray areas".

I have supported the ends so far, but if I say I don't care about the means/process, then I'm pretty absent morals IMO.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:That's why I responded for clarification Dan. Your mention of "hiding" the memo, and thinking it would "eventually" have to be released had me thinking you were going after the admin and less so the media. This is being played vey closely to how the Bush admin handled "gray areas".

I have supported the ends so far, but if I say I don't care about the means/process, then I'm pretty absent morals IMO.

I am going after the admin. to the extent that they are failing (so far) to own up to, and defend their legal justification for their actions in the court of public opinion.

The only way it will eventually have to be released is if the media does its job and demands the "transparency" this admin promised and is now refusing to deliver. The Atlantic blog post is a step in the right direction. Let's see what the NYT and the WaPo say in the days to come.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

So glad you're finally hear to weigh in and bring clarity. I was hoping you'd show you up to help us centrists find our voice.

Now give those bobbleheads what for and make me proud.

You gonna tell me to go fuck myself?

You are, aren't ya.

You're either begin or end (or maybe both) by telling me to go fuck myself.

I'm just gonna go fuck myself now.

You precious little flower.

I was poking fun at Dan, GoTribe, and OJ.

And you're not a centrist, our only centrist just opened a specialty brothel in Thailand with drug sale proceeds.

oG flesrouy kcuf.

I know you were poking fun at those three gentlemen.

And thank you for not telling me to "Go fuck yourself". I was relieved not to see it anywhere and, believe me, I looked all over the place. Still putting that german in the last sentence through a couple online translators though. I'll see what I can figure out.

I love CDT because he always elevates the conversation, and god knows someone has to do comic relief from this shit.

the administration is telling us what their position is, just not their legal basis for it as regards the Constitution...and like I said before, I don't have any problem with their reasoning on this "belligerent", or in general on other "high-level leaders of enemy forces". Link is WaPo.

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Had this have taken place 4 years ago though, I have a hard time not thinking that the NY Times, Harry Reid, Pelosi would have been screaming that it was an extrajudicial killing and Bush should be impeached.

This would have been an extrajudicial killing and Bush should have been impeached. As is, this is an extrajudicial killing and Obama should be impeached.

"Oh, but it would have been hard to bring him to trial." Tough fucking shit. He is owed due process, no matter what manner of scumbag he may have been. If you can't do it, then he walks. If the evidence wasn't strong enough to stand up to trial, how the fuck was it good enough to issue the order to kill him? If you can't do your job within the framework of the Constitution, step down for someone who will. Its that simple.

Erie Warrior wrote:If you don't want to be killed by the government, don't do bad things.

Seems pretty black and white to me.

Because innocent people are never accused and convicted of doing bad things.

No feasible or realistic way to capture these terrorists (American or otherwise) living in uncontrolled 3rd world countries. Kill'em if we have to even if that means walking over the edges of the constitution to do so. It's a slippery slope to disregard the constitution but it's better than the alternative in this case.

Could an innocent American potentially be wrongly killed by accident or by a corrupt government official? In theory I guess. I'm more concerned with protecting as many American's as possible though so I'll sacrifice the few, theoretic wrongly killed to save another September 11th from happening.

With regards to the douche formerly known as al-Awlaki, the great Judge Schmales put it best, "I felt we owed it to him".